SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS
Submission to Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry Public Hearings on the National Water Act Implementation Review
22 October 2008
Introduction
The National Water Act (NWA, 36 of 1998) requires rivers to be managed for their desired state and that an Ecological Reserve (ER) isdelivered in the case of each river. The ER ensures that the river delivers the ecosystem services that people depend upon in terms of the desired state selected by stakeholders in that specific catchment. It is to ensure sustainability for human use of many kinds, through what are called ecosystem services. We can only achieve this if the three facets (social, economic, environment) are met. ERs have been determined for several of the perennial rivers associated with KrugerNational Park, and need to be delivered in terms of the Act. ER’s are also in the process of being determined for all rivers, and hence for rivers and estuaries associated with other national parks in South Africa, several of which have equally serious issues asdo those associated with KrugerPark. The processes used to determine ER’s are both participatory and scientifically sound.
The National Water Act is still in the process of implementation 10 years after its promulgation,and the current situation inKrugerNational Parkrivers due to non-implementation,is untenable.This is because the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003 as amended) (NEMPAA) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA) mandate the South African National Parks (SANParks) to maintain biodiversity in protected areas, a task with tremendous challenges as rivers are shared with other users. While the National Water Act strives to guarantee the ERin rivers in general,ahead of all other needs except the basic human needs, this is mostly not happening in practice. Current demands by developments such as mining, agriculture and potable water often overshadow the allocation of the ER. Further provisions of the Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA) enable bioregions to be proclaimed. In the areas where these are proclaimed or likely to soon be proclaimed, they generally include national parks. This ensures, as indeed does the ER, that parks have to be seen as part of the wider landscape. Land use practices over that wider area (catchment or bioregion) are pertinent to river flow and quality. For instance, perennial rivers of the KrugerParkoriginate outside the Park and the impacts on these rivers upstream and adjacent to the KrugerPark have resulted into different forms of pollution and decrease in the quantity of the water in the rivers (flow). Less than 5% of the flow in the rivers is generally generated inside the Kruger Park, which emphasise their dependence on adequate stream flows and stream quality entering the Park from the west, outside the borders of the Park, especially during the dry winter months when base flows are a result of seepage from sponges in the mountain catchment areas in the escarpment. Any likely scenario of increased temperatures and evaporative losses, as per global climate change trends, may amplify undesirable developments, unless offset by much increased rainfall – which seems unlikely over most of South Africa.
The desired state of rivers flowing through national parks is thus legally underpinned, to protect biodiversity, ecosystem services and the human benefits these provide. It is well known that when a perennial riverstops flowing or is continuously polluted, biodiversity is seriously and probablypermanently compromised, unless restoration efforts are put in place. The recent inadequate flows and poor quality of the perennial rivers flowing through theKrugerNational Parkthus seriously detracts from the conservation mandate of SANParks.
SANParks calls foradequate water flow for these rivers under the law in the national and international conservation interest. We expect the Department of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF) as the current implementing agency of the National Water Act to ensure Environmental Reserve delivery of the five perennial rivers flowing through the KrugerPark, as well as rivers associated with other national parks. This will ensure that both DWAF and DEAT will be able to deliver on their respective legislative mandates. It is understood thatattainment of ERdelivery is slow and challenging, but we believe that active cooperation between DWAF, DEAT, SANParks and otherswill ensure achieving the desired state. Analogous considerations across international borders are also crucial. It is our understanding that water resource management is a national competence precisely because of these factors.
Cessation of flow in theKrugerNational Park’s previously perennial rivers has been common recently,and its impact on the biodiversity is huge. The aquatic species in many of the perennial rivers in the KrugerNational Park, such as fish, are severely impacted.Different forms of water use, legal and illegal, and various forms of pollution have compounded the problem. Most rivers seem to have been overcommitted, often seriously.
The importance of water and related aquatic biodiversity can not be overemphasized. The the State of Environment Report (SoER) that was release by DEAT last year, hasrevealed that a shocking 82% of South Africa's 120 rivers are ecologically threatened, with 44% being critically endangered. Although, the environment is recognized as a legitimate user of water, not all stakeholders accept this fact. This covers both surface and groundwater dependent ecosystems, streams, lakes, wetlands and springs. Providing water for the environment is necessary to ensure ecosystem integrity, productivity and long term sustainability. Healthy water dependent ecosystems contribute to the health of the water resources that sustain our industries and the community's economic, social and environmental values. This important link (between healthy rivers and healthy people, and between healthy rivers and healthy societal activities based on water and rivers) must be emphasised so that stakeholders better understand the purpose of the ER.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry determined the Instream Flow Requirements for all the rivers flowing through the Kruger National Park, some of which have been approved by the DG of DWAF as the Environmental Reserve (Letaba, Olifants and Crocodile rivers), but implementation has not been forthcoming for most of the rivers, leaving the Kruger National Park in a frustrating situation each time there seems to be a shortage of water for other users.
This seriously compromises SANPark’s ability to conserve biodiversity in the national and international interest, and, using the rationale underlying ER’s, hence automatically also means that healthy and economically sustainable societies are,or will soon be, clearly compromised.
Purpose of this submission
The purpose of this submission is to:
- Inform the Portfolio Committee that, in spite of ten years since passage of the National Water Act, an ongoing crisis exists in many rivers,especially in the KrugerNational Park; and hence obtain support for SANParks’ efforts to manage South Africa’s national parks in a sustainable manner
- Point out what are in our opinion key issues contributing to this ongoing crisis, and to
- Secure the ecological integrity of the KrugerNational Parkas well as other national parks and the rivers flowing throughthemthrough the allocation and supply of adequate water quantities from catchment areas which occur to the west of the Park, by ensuring that the available water resources are allocated equitably according to the National Water Act.
To ensure an improved state of affairs, we believe that the following needs to happen:
- SANParks’ mandate of protecting and maintaining biodiversity in the KrugerNational Parkand other national parks in the national interest must be clearly supported by the state through applying national laws.
- The Ecological Reserve for each river, or prior to it being signed off, the best available environmental water requirements determination, needs to be implemented through adequate management of water resources outside parks. Technical complexity contributing to delays in this implementation, such as those related to the long drawn out classification process for rivers, needs to be dealt with in sucha way as to expedite practical implementation. Increasing appropriate human capacity limitations, and construction of well-functioning collaborative networks are two other key issues that in our opinion will help facilitate the challenging implementation process.
- South Africaneeds to practice good neighbourliness by allowing water to reach Mozambique via the rivers.
Motivation for allocating adequote water to national park rivers
Many parks, such as theKrugerNational Park,depend mostly on water draining from the upper mountain catchment areas and hence depend on proper management of such water resources. These may include upstream impoundments. In cases of parks in headwaters (e.g. MarakeleNational Park), SANParks accepts that our organisation is responsible for effective land and water management, and hence for appropriate water-derived ecosystem services into the areas below the headwaters.
Much effort and money hasbeen invested by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to determine the environmental water requirements, but full implementation has not been forthcoming. As a result, several rivers in the Park have ceased flowing and others are suffering from agricultural and mining pollution.This include the Limpopo, Letaba, Olifants and Crocodile rivers, while the Luvuvhu River was on several occasionsin a critically low condition and is threatened by coking coal mining in the Tshikondeni area. The SabieRiver is also usually way below its required flow conditions. Some aquatic species have been lostand many have diminished in numbers and population vitality. This has serious consequences for the conservation of biodiversity, and for SANParks delivering on its conservation mandate.
The rivers draining through theKrugerNational Parkare greatly over-utilised. Pollution from various sources compounds the problem thereby degrading the riverine habitats and reducing the supply and quality of the river water. The KrugerNational Park has the mandate to conserve its biodiversity (including aquatic biodiversity) in the national interest. It has a mission to “…protect biodiversity in all its natural facets and fluxes…”, which originates from the South African National Parks mission; “To develop and manage a system of national parksthat represents the biodiversity, landscapes, and associated heritage assetsof South Africa for the sustainable use and benefit of all”. There are therefore serious threats to these mandates.
Water quality in some rivers is on a serious downward trajectory. A contributing factor to the deteriorating water quality is over-abstraction. The lower the flow in the rivers the more concentrated the dissolved substances in its waters. The reduced flow in the river systemscauses concentration of dissolved substances to such an extent that it becomes unsuitable for some of the sensitive species in the water. Progressively accumulating substances, such as persistent organic compounds, are increasingly detected in analyses. As indicated earlier, the catchments have a host of land and water uses, and human health often suffers. Sewage effluent problems have created microbiological pollution in the river systems. Mining activities also contribute to quality problems in some of the rivers. Agricultural activities (especially irrigation seepage) have contributed to the nutrient loads in the rivers. The growth of algae in the rivers into unnatural algal blooms which affect other species has resulted from the nutrient build ups. The growth of aquatic alien weeds like Water Hyacinth is also encouraged by the increase in nutrient loads. The assimilative capacity of the rivers to deal with such pollutants is reduced by the low flows. Invasive alien fish have become a serious and uncontrolled problem in many rivers (these are covered by the Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), whose regulations remain unfinalised at this time).
Tree, Crocodile and Fish kills
Flow stoppages and pollution in the Luvuvhu, Letaba, Olifants and Crocodile rivers have caused serioustree, crocodile and fish kills over the past few decades.
Large-scale crocodile deaths have recently occurred (still ongoing) in the lower parts of the OlifantsRiver. Although the precise reasons have not yet been determined, this can at least partly be ascribed to the back-flooding of the Massingir Dam into the OlifantsRiver gorge and the deposition of huge amounts of sediment in the inflow areas. According to an expert workshop held recently, it is also most probably indicative of a “sick river syndrome”, indicating a river that have been under subtle pressure of pollution for many years, with predators at the top of the food chain (crocodiles) becoming the “tip of the iceberg” which we see clearly. In this way, South Africa appears to be entering the same unfavourable situation as for instance, those places elsewhere on the planet where deaths of top predatory fish or birds have occurred, and where this has invariably been condemned as poor environmental management associated with concomitant human health hazards.
Fish kills are especially evident during flow stoppages in pools with hippos, due to accumulation of organic material, which in turn causes oxygen depletion. This forces theKrugerNational Parkto relook its abolished policy on hippo culling. The removal of hippos from selected pools to reduce the input of faeces and improve the oxygen situation is an option to safeguard some organisms. But this comes down to applying the wrong method to conserve certain parts of the rivers. This will however not safeguard flow dependant species.
Local, National and International Implications
SANParks is failing in its mandate of biodiversity conservation due to the river flow and quality situation. South Africa is signatory to many international conventions in this regard, and is a prominentmember of the IUCN. TheKrugerNational Parkis regarded worldwide as a safe haven for biodiversity. This reputation that draws tourists to this country may be fading if the minimum amount of water required is not allowed into the park. Furthermore, the relationship between Mozambique and South Africa may be affected if water does not get to our downstream neighbours as water is the source of life and almost all poverty alleviation and economic ventures. The poor river situation caused our downstream neighbours to push ahead with plans to increase the height of two major dams in Mozambique that have and will cause flooding of unique gorges in the Olifants and Sabie rivers in the KNP.
Financial Implications
The aesthetic value of our river courses is deteriorating due to the dryness of the river beds/channels. The aquatic biodiversity is decreasing. These events may lead to the loss of tourists that have great interest in water and aquatic biodiversity including birds that aggregate around water bodies. SANParks are bound to lose revenue if theseincidents are not rectified. Direct tourism income alone stood (for the year ending 31 March 2008) at R533M, of which Kruger’s contribution made up R285M. This does not include the multiplier effect of private nature reserves in the surrounding regions, almost all of which can attribute a larger Gross Geographical Product to the presence of parks.
Communication Implications
A communication strategy on this issue has been developed and various catchment Forums have been initiated or encouraged by theKrugerNational Parkto ensure that the precious water resource is managed and utilised on a sustainable basis. Other communication channels have been created and are used to support the custodians of the nation’s waters in allocating water equitably and also to follow the regulations stipulated in the National Water Act. This has included several research programmes, the ongoing ones concentrating on governance in the context of catchment management agencies. SANParks-DWAF liaison committees at national strategic, and now also at regional operational levels, have begun meeting and hold much promise. This overall strategy aims to ensure that all stakeholders in the catchments involving parks are part and parcel of every recommendation arising from this action.
Constitutional Implications
If the rivers in the Kruger National Park continue to be degraded the way they are at the moment, is reflects a serious transgression of the Constitution of South Africa, which states as follows in Chapter 2, Section 24:
“Everyone has the right
- to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
- to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
- prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
- promote conservation; and
- secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”
Recommendations